Re: When to use Bounded_String?

[vincent.diemunsch@gmail.com]

Le jeudi 28 décembre 2017 13:00:46 UTC+1, Dmitry A. Kazakov a écrit :
> > Yes, they are really a great improvement. But they would be perfect if :
> > 1. they handled UTF-8 as the de-facto standard encoding, for strings.
> 
> You can ignore encoding and use them as if they were UTF-8
> 
Sure. That's what is done, at least on Unixes (Linux and OSX).


> > 2. they could see strings as sequences of 32-bits Unicode Code Points (Wide_Wide_Characters).
> 
> 23 / 4 = 5 characters

No. At least 5 characters if they are very complicated. But 23 ASCII Characters.
The idea here is to decode the UTF-8 string to extract a character and give it in Unicode in the most common format for integers : 32-bits.
 
The only limitation is that you would have sequential access to the string, not random access as with the usual array of characters. But I really don't see the
point of having a random access to the characters in a string !

> P.S. Just never copy strings if you have performance concerns (even if 
> you have none). Nothing to optimize then. Use string slices, pass string 
> + an index to start at, do everything in a single pass, there is no 
> reason to waste CPU time, memory and brain cells on "tokenizing".

True. Except for storing the identifiers in a symbol table...

Kind regards,

Vincent